Overrated artist writes shiatty sequel: news at 11.

/seriously... what is with the Cooke hype?

Whether this is a good idea or not, I'd stay the hell away from this project.

That won't be very hard.

Or maybe it will.

/Bluecock.jpg

Mentat: Whether this is a good idea or not, I'd stay the hell away from this project.


This x10000.

FirstNationalBastard: /seriously... what is with the Cooke hype?



Agreed.

Not sure if headline is great troll or lousy troll. Hurm.

Subby am #1!

I can't wait for these prequels. Rorschach's assassination attempt on Nixon! The rise of Ozymandias's merchandising empire! Dr Manhattan sells a biatchin watch! Nite Owl starts an auto repair shop! And to make it all dark and shiat, the Silk Spectre gets raped, for real this time!

I liked Watchmen. I thought it handled the superhero genre better than most attempts that have been made. But sequels are almost inevitably shiat, and that goes double for prequels.

Sorry, subby must have copied the URL for the wrong tag.

This headline is *highly*

And from that cover art it looks like he's ripping off Mike Allred pretty hard.

mcmnky: Mentat: Whether this is a good idea or not, I'd stay the hell away from this project.

Why?

Like many, upon first hearing of this project I had a negative reaction.

Then I realized, why not? Why can Watchmen only be written by Moore? How many writers have worked with Superman over the years? Or Batman? Or X-Men, Avengers, Spiderman? Where's the nerd indignation over the coming Dark Knight movie? It won't be written by the original Batman writers.

In fact, Moore worked on Batman and Superman. So those characters are trash? Pulp to be thrown at any writer looking to make some coin, but the Watchmen are holy, never to be touched by any mortal?

They're comic book characters. It's a serial art form. Deal with it.

Is there some accusation of Godfather-style threats? Did DC rip the ideas from head by magic?

How many movies have been made from Moore's work, and how many has he biatched about? Well, fool him once, shame on you. Fool him twice, shame on him. Fool him three times, well, some people just don't learn.

Yes, I know he had issues with DC over money, But are there claims anyone has done anything with his characters they didn't have a right to do? Or only that he wasn't paid enough?

As the joke goes, we've established what he is. It's only a question of price.

Technically the characters weren't his to begin with. The entire cast were thinly veiled leftovers from various DC books http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Watchmen_characters many of which are still kicking around the DC universe.

So yeah, they were Superman and Batman. fark, Manhattan is Superman and Nite Owl is Batman. Maybe Manhattan is Silver Surfer or the Spectre or whatever, but you get the omnipotent archetype.

The problem is, Watchmen isn't a franchise or a serial. It's a self-contained story. The prequels were already in the book. No, it's not precious, no it's not sacrilege, but it is stupid. There's nothing redeeming about any of these characters on their own. It's going to work out as well as a Blue Beetle or Vision series.

I guess my issue is why? Watchman was a self-contained story about what a world with real superheros would actually be like, it was brilliant, and I don't see how any additions are going to add to the broader themes of the story.

FirstNationalBastard: Overrated artist writes shiatty sequel: news at 11.

/seriously... what is with the Cooke hype?

Cooke is a great cartoonist and has written some great stuff.

Alan Moore worship is the problem here. Watchmen is a great book, a good movie.

J. Michael Straczynski pointed this out: Alan Moore signed a bad contract in the beginning of his career. It happens to everything about You either grow up and accept it or you pout like a child. For twenty years DC waited for him.

Zombie DJ: FirstNationalBastard: Overrated artist writes shiatty sequel: news at 11.

/seriously... what is with the Cooke hype?

You're stupid and should feel bad about any knowledge you have of comics.

What?

Inflammatory initial statement aside, what is with the Cooke hype?

His art isn't that great, and his mainstream superhero stories are paint by numbers stuff. Now, he's involved in the Watchmen Babies fiasco.

devlin carnate: The world will look up and shout "Save us from these crappy money grabs based on this classic tale!".

And I'll whisper "No."

+1

Darth_Lukecash: FirstNationalBastard: Overrated artist writes shiatty sequel: news at 11.

/seriously... what is with the Cooke hype?

Cooke is a great cartoonist and has written some great stuff.

Alan Moore worship is the problem here. Watchmen is a great book, a good movie.

J. Michael Straczynski pointed this out: Alan Moore signed a bad contract in the beginning of his career. It happens to everything about You either grow up and accept it or you pout like a child. For twenty years DC waited for him.

I'm not coming from a place of Moore worship. I think he should have retired in 1992 and never written another comic book ever. IMO, He's generally a pissy old crank who is hypocritical when he biatches about how DC Comics is making all their money off of throwaway ideas he came up with in the 80s, especially when his career was made from taking old, forgotten properties and doing more adult stories with them. But that doesn't mean he's wrong to biatch about it, because at least when Moore was updating Miracleman or Swamp Thing, or the Charlton characters, he was doing something new and interesting with them. What DC is doing now is just farking the same old chicken because their professional fanboys have no original ideas of their own to put on the page.

Not every super hero comic book needs to be rehashed and sequeled and prequeled to death. Some things stand perfectly well on their own and need nothing further to be done with them.

Watchmen is one of those things.

Didn't Dark Knight 2 prove that it's best to leave beloved stories alone?

RepoManTSM: Moore biatched about the movie and it ended being great.


I know the movie received a lot of hate on Fark, but damn it, I liked it.

However....

After watching the director's cut, I wondered why the full Vietnam battle scene wasn't shown in theaters....it was AWESOME.

RepoManTSM: Moore biatched about the movie and it ended being great.

Nope.

I've gotta say, as much as Moore likes to yap, which you can tell from any interview with him, he didn't make a fuss about this. He didn't put out a press release saying this is total shiat and I have nothing to do with it. An interviewer on some website with 400 hits a month asked him what he thought of it. He's entitled to his opinion, and his opinion makes sense. DC should be trying to do something original, not rehashing something they let lie for 20 years while a movie was "in development."

The only time I recall him making a fuss was when they said he was on board with the V movie (which was shiat) when he wasn't.

//Moore apologist
//Century is shiat

The_Sponge: RepoManTSM: Moore biatched about the movie and it ended being great.


I know the movie received a lot of hate on Fark, but damn it, I liked it.

However....

After watching the director's cut, I wondered why the full Vietnam battle scene wasn't shown in theaters....it was AWESOME.

I saw Watchmen in Vietnam, I didn't even get the full theater release version of the battle scene.

FirstNationalBastard: Darth_Lukecash: FirstNationalBastard: Overrated artist writes shiatty sequel: news at 11.

/seriously... what is with the Cooke hype?

Cooke is a great cartoonist and has written some great stuff.

Alan Moore worship is the problem here. Watchmen is a great book, a good movie.

J. Michael Straczynski pointed this out: Alan Moore signed a bad contract in the beginning of his career. It happens to everything about You either grow up and accept it or you pout like a child. For twenty years DC waited for him.

I'm not coming from a place of Moore worship. I think he should have retired in 1992 and never written another comic book ever. IMO, He's generally a pissy old crank who is hypocritical when he biatches about how DC Comics is making all their money off of throwaway ideas he came up with in the 80s, especially when his career was made from taking old, forgotten properties and doing more adult stories with them. But that doesn't mean he's wrong to biatch about it, because at least when Moore was updating Miracleman or Swamp Thing, or the Charlton characters, he was doing something new and interesting with them. What DC is doing now is just farking the same old chicken because their professional fanboys have no original ideas of their own to put on the page.

Not every super hero comic book needs to be rehashed and sequeled and prequeled to death. Some things stand perfectly well on their own and need nothing further to be done with them.

Watchmen is one of those things.

Didn't Dark Knight 2 prove that it's best to leave beloved stories alone?

Two major problems with your point:
1) You say it was okay that Alan Moore did it to Miracle Man, it was okay because it came out good. Since no one has seen the projects yet, you can't judge if they are good or bad.

2) That it's inherently wrong for a company who's business is to make money by going back to things that people liked before. Art has been and always will be a commercial venture.

But that is what art is about: It's a common re-examining of our mythologies, stories, symbols and philosophies. For all intents and purpose they are NOT changing the Watchmen. It remains the same work that Alan Moore and David Gibbons created. The artists and writers are telling other stories about these characters.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote his original Sherlock Holmes stories. The original will always be there. But we have had several different very cool interpretations of the characters, bringing different angle and shades to the human view point. From Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, to Benedict Cumberbatch. Each played an incredibly wonderful version of Sherlock Holmes. Who by your extreme view of things, should never have been allowed.

Batman has gone through several thousand interpretations bringing different shades of what humanity considers "Heroic" Should Bob Kane's and Bill Fingers character not gone through any refinement or crafting?

The main reason why people are up in arms about this is purely because of Alan Moore's complaint about it. Doesn't matter that David Gibbons said "Well, have fun guys!" And quite frankly Alan Moore's "Lost Girls" and "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" has canceled out hypocritical standing about using other peoples characters.

Personally, I'm not interested in any of the Watchmen projects. Unless there is some people rave about it-then I'll get the Trade Paper backs. My interest in comics have waned considerably except for a few cool titles. Mouse Gaurd, Chew, Snarked, Sergio Argones Funnies and The Boys. I'm also liking the latest interpretation of Wonder Woman

4NSpy: Didn't Watchmen already have an ass-ton of backstory already? What could a prequel have that wasn't already covered in the original? Will it just be the Comedian fightin' 'round the world?

20 pages of big blue wang!